One of the main reasons for the organising of the Diaconal Forum was to open a space where it would be possible for the many different voices of diaconia in Europe to be heard, to create an opportunity for the exchange of experience. The second reason was that it was assumed that through a process of deepening reflection and developing analysis together, new visions, new strategies and new alliances would be built up. So the main aim of the Forum was to develop communication which is, in itself, central to the task of diaconia. We recognise how much suffering is caused, how much conflict and violence arises from non-communication. I am using the word communication with a very broad meaning here, not only words but symbols; not only what is "said", but the culture and action around the speaker also communicates powerfully. Following this basic reflection, I think it is true to say that our meeting here has been a kind of mirror in which we could see so many of the problems of communication in our diaconal engagement reflected. And, time to time, we could celebrate the empowerment and transformation, which comes in moments of direct communication. What I want to emphasise is that there were extremely important moments of communicaiton and I want to underline the fact that, given our plurality, it is not surprising that there were also tough moments! But if we can examine this more deeply, maybe we can really learn from the Forum and use these insights in our own work. so I would like to share with you some of the ways in which the forum was a mirror. Maybe you can add your own ideas?

First of all, it was obvious that different participants were used to very different styles of communication, they had different expectations about communication. These expectations arise from our own formation and background. For some people, in such an inter-organisational setting the communication is expected to be more conceptual, formal and organisational. Underlying concepts and practices are clarified and laid open to debate, from a given position. For others, it is a question of understanding another's biography, identity, position - to work with narrative, story. The aim is to be open to change, to produce new knowledge through the communicative process. Secondly, even though the organisers tried very hard to secure a "balanced" representation in the Forum, it became clear at many points that, broadly speaking, western approaches to the various topics were "normative". For example, in the discussion about civil society and the role and aperception of church as part of the non-state sector, the experience of organisation building in central and eastern Europe and the difficulties of opening the new space was not given the same weight as the discussions in western European countries. Very often the experience of minorities, especially balck and ethnic minorities, was missing from the discussion.

I do not want to reduce this to a banality, but some simple pairs of opposites highlight some elements of the communication difficulty, which we have faced in these days. These are rather ideal types and its easy to be critical of them for being too abstracted but they shed light on the dilemmas. I have already alluded to the first two pairs in the preceding paragraph. It is very difficult to organise good communication between people for whom it is normal to start with frameworks and concepts ain the preceding paragraph. It is very difficult to organise good communication between people for whom it is normal to start with frameworks and concepts and practitioners and others who prefer to begin with biography and story, which can of course be illuminated by and can illuminate analytical and theoretical contributions. Closly linked with this is the tendency for the Forum to be concerned on one side with very abstract thinking and on the other side with people who prefer narrative and direct, concrete communication. Another pair of contrasting images is that of the institution and formal structure and the street or local reality. Of course we need structures for the work and some people will need institutional care. The questions is how do we understand these different realities and how do they interact. For example, coming from the (perhaps over-institutionalised) west, now living in central Europe it becomes obvious to me that the meaning of building up some minimal institutions is a very important contribution to the reform of welfare services and to the building up of civil society. It is not a movement apart from civil society and it can serve as a sign to the wider society that different ways of social action and caring are possible. Institutions and strucutres can also reinforce work in neighbourhoods and "streets", but then they have to change and we need to find the examples of this transformation too. Nor should we romanticise the street, but at the local level, where the issues are felt in the daily lives and where insitutions seem remote, local diaconia can develop open communication and relationships of trust, which are empowering.

Finally, in this forum we have sensed another profound tension. Some of us develop our theology and spirituality out of a received and celebrated traditional position and are working out their position and practice from the Bible and the Fathers. Others emphasise the 'theological hermeneutics of everyday life', especially with forgotten people in forgotten places. The conversation between the different worlds of Orthodox theology, with its emphases and methods and theologies which take interaction with the context seriously is very important not only for the future of diaconia, but the future living together in Europe. the challenges of globalisation and its accompanying post-modern sensibility are reflected in the responses of traditional and contexstual theologies. In this consultation, a window was opened which gave a view of the field, which has to be explored further.

It is important to notice the role that institutional and other forms of power play in shaping the conversation in this Forum and to work out ways in which there can be an equal dialogue between the different positions, ways in which excluded voices can be heard.

Another important line of reflection is opened up when we notice the different images of the person used in our discussions about diaconal methods and strategies. How we name persons shapes our relationship even before it starts. Different diaconal traditions and different contexts call forth different images and 'names'. And of course, many of these labels are often borrowed from secular discourse. So the attitudes behind the choice of word are also carried into our work, sometimes uncritically. Professionalising diaconia has latched onto the image of "client" but in today's market orientated welfare systems "customer" (sometimes even "consumer") is often used. Clents may or may not have power, but customers have power if they have the power to purchase! And what about the idea of citizen, because citizenship usually implies rights or entitlements. But perhaps the challenge comes from seeing those with whom we work also as subjects (participating) in the diaconal activity, rather than simply as recipients. People are surviving and overcoming pain, suffering and injustice. They have thir own personal or group understanding. We find in the people with who we work not just negatiaves, deficits, but also strengths, spirit, humour and celebration, finding a way, we find (our) humanity. Diaconia strives to see those with whom it works as subjects of the action and not as objects. This has implications for diaconial action in neighborhoods, congregations, institutions.

Putting together these two ideas - person as subject and the importance of communication, we can uncover an appropriate model of professionalism for diaconia. 'Horizontal' communication is the key for a model of work which is seeing persons as subject, working for empowerment. The qualities in the professional model must be based on listening, questioning, provoking new thoughts, organising with people and accompanying people in their own actions. Such a model of 'diaconia-led' mission is an essential part of the churches' quest for a new future. Of course, I am not by this discounting other specialisms such as those associated with health care, but the basic starting point has to be with the people concerned. (Many health problelms have their origins in unsatisfactory living and working conditions, conflictual and stressful relationships and so on.) the organisational model for developing this work is much less the hierachy and more the network, which keeps power at the appropriate level and defines the action by voluntary participation. Actually, the way which we organised the Forum also illustrates the problem. There is an almost natural limit on numbers and each organisation had to invite representative (institutional) representatives. Therefore, we found out that our organisaitonal model led to significant exclusions - exclusion of the subjects of diaconia but also of significant groups such as black and migrant self-organised churches (and black and migrant people) and of NGO partners.

The Forum stood witness to an extraordinary richness and diversity of diaconal experience and action. The plenaries were enlivened by stories from local situations where diaconia comes to life. Looking back over the last ten years it is possible to speak of a resurrection of diaconia, a recovery of the tradition and its appropriation to new circumstances. In am speaking mainly of CEE countries, Russia and former Russian republics. It is remarkable how the 'memory' of diaconia was kept alive by word of mouth and informal, discrete action when the churches' possibilities were severely curtailed. The lessons from this period should not be lost as we experience the possibility to outwardly express in every place that diaconia is and should be a mark and attribute of the church and of every organisation, a guiding motif for its misisn. In some cases there are new efforts to ground congregations which are expressly diaconal in their orientation, seeking new ways to engage with the excluded adn marginalised people, involving them in the total life of the church. In this way worship and liturgy move from the private to the public sphere, challenging and celebrating, worshipping and serving.

Diaconia is a mark and attribute of the church, but it also finds other expressions. For example so called institutional diaconia finds its place especially amongst those who need total care or shelter (asylum in its true meaning). But in societies, which previously only knew institutions as places to 'store' or punish those who do not fit the ideal type, institutions can be sign of a new society in action. Double strategies can be important. On the one side to influence the policies and staff training of the state institutins, on the other to demonstrate different ways of actoin and caring and to provide for choice. The involvement of lay people in developing and managing such initiatives as well as in non-paid work can also be seen as an important route for the strengthening of civil society. Furthermore, we should not underestimate the possibility for such diaconal institutions to be a base for supporitng other social actions and social movements. If one key word is conviviality, surely we should search for possibilities for all diaconal initiatives to be convivial!

A second expression of 'diaconia outside the congregation' is the work of urban and industrial mission and of community work. This starts with people in their living and working situation and seeks to work with them on the most important issues that affect them in their living and working places. It is a form of pastoral action, which is involved in working with people to build their own self-organisations and to take their own initiatives. This work with 'forgotten people and in forgotten places' is also a form of civil society building. But the organisations are focused partly on survival s trategies, partly on workign for change (political or institutional) and partly on creating alternatives. Here new forms of celebration and liturgy may emerge and new forms of inter-faith dialogue take root.

Diaconia may be congregationally based or may be in some way 'outside the congregation' but the Forum identified some of the marks of diaconia for our times. We should strive to make diaconal initiatives sustainable and focus them on developing actions with people, personally and in groups or neighbourhoods. This was already an emphasis in Bratislava. Diaconia should be contextual - related to cultures and local situation. International networking and learning is important but each context demands its own specific response. The focus of diaconia is on those who are marginalised and excluded and on the basis of its engagement diaconia should encourage movement for change in church and society and in some cases, diaconia is a movement itself in church and society. Diaconia has the task of challenging adn naming injustice as well as working with those who suffer from injustice.

Diaconia is grounded in liturgy (or as the Orthodox traditions have it, it is the 'liturgy after the liturgy'). On the other hand, we discovered in the Forum that there are many ways in which diaconia can have its own impact on the liturgy when diaconal concerns are integrated into congregational spirituality. The conviviality which diaconia seeks in its action in society may also stimulate new forms of celebration and liturgy, including new forms of inter-faith celebration. And as we experienced, liturgy may become a public proclamation of faith in an inclusive spirituality and community life, combining public witness, celebration and challenge.

Diaconia is based on communication and participation. In every aspect of diaconia, interpersonal, institutional and social the element of communication is fundamental. The values of diaconia must influence the style of communication. The aim is for communication to be open, without coercion and for it to be 'horizontal'. It means we must be critically open to the use and abuse of power and position. Such a form of communication seeks to value the other and gives priority to the participation of people and groups in the defining of their own situation and in developing the responses. This communication model is an important corrective to the use of power by many political economic and social institutions and it is an important witness of diaconia in the struggle to preserve and enhance human dignity.

Finally, diaconia has a task towards the wider society, towards the fundamental economic, political and cultural structures that shape life. This is partly expressed through the advocacy functions of diaconia. It is also expressed in partnerships with civil organisations and with groups and movements built up by diaconia. We could express it as the function of diaconia working both with and on behalf of those it seeks to serve. This role encompasses naming and challenging injustices on every level, locally, nationally and internationally. It means addressing the huge disparities of income and wealth, which mark the globalising economy, but it also means advocating the cause of those who are excluded because of race, gender, ability or age. It points tot he need for all to change in order that all may live in dignity and it counters the dominant view taht only those who are marginalised have the need for personal change. This action goes to the root values of modern culture and rests on our fundamental belief in the equality of people before God and of people as made in the image of God. Human dignity is indivisible.

The main contextual challenges which have been identified in this consultation are, unsurprisingly, related to the twin phenomena of the growing economic and political integration of Europe and the impact of the transition to market economies of different types in central and eastern Europe and Russia and the former Russian Republics. (Some countries have not yet achieved 40% of the GDP level they had in 1990.) This is taking place under the challenging pressure of competitive globalisation. Integration on a high level, such as is taking place now, produces rapid change and often disintegration (sometimes, civil strife and war) on the local level. Whilst there are undoubted winners in this process, especially in the North, the impact is enormously negative on particular groups and regions, which have figured highly in the consultation. The present form of globalising economy generates higher and increasingly frequent risks that, because of interlocking systems, affect more people and places simultaneously. Growing inequality and poverty are the results along with racism, discriminatin and feminisation of poverty. One particularly important challenge, which relates to these issues, is that of migration into, within and out of Europe. As poverty in Africa increases and violence continues, people are more desperate to come to Europe as a survival strategy. Immigration control, as we graphically heard, becomes an issue for the army and navy rather than the police. But there is also massive migration within Europe - new east to west brain drains and movements of people into CEE countries desperately seeking work or escape from civil war or oppression.

Secondly, one of the main themes of the consultation has been that of civil society and the church as part of civil society. There are many different concepts of civil society, but in the Forum, it represented the area of social life, which is neither under the state institutional structure at any level, nor in the private sector. This may be true, but it disguises a number of contradictions. The concept of civil society was brought to prominence in discussions in CEE countries, as a space beyond the party, yet there was little discusison of this experience and what might be learnt from CEE countries about diaconia nad political practice. (And the difficulties of developing civil society in that context). The discussion in western Europe was largely dealt with in terms of a position mid way between state and market which seems appropriate to diaconia. It is a fruitful entry point related to the popular distrust of political institutions. Yet civil society is an ambiguous concept shaped and formed in the interplay between state and market and called upon to perform particular roles at different times. It is in fact a site of "struggle" rather than an easy non-conflictual option. Civil society can be shaped as a space for the contractual delivery of welfare, a kind of "substitute state" in countries which want to transform their welfare states. This can very easily lead to the co-option of civil society as it fulfils its role of cheap delivery mechanism for state welfare and in fact it les the state "off the hook". But civil society must remain a free space fo the development and advocacy of new ideas. Depending on social position, building up civil society can be seen as a voluntaristic (hopefully) critical resonse to the lack of functioning democracy or it can in fact be a necessity as excluded groups organise a space for building critical resistance or oppositions and alternatives.

This directly links to the third challenge, which concerns the role of the state and politics. It can be argued that some the most active forms of politics in recent years have come into being because of either major changes in state welfare or because of disillusion with state systems. In western Europe, there has been a shift of mentality away from the development of an ever more comprehensive welfare state (Nordic model as the norm) towards a mixed economy of welfare. This has major implications for churches and especially for diaconla work and social responsibility. Waht are the boundaries of political responsibility and how far can and should the state "off load" its responsibility for welfare to the private and non-profit organisations? Under which criteria are the churches working when they become major service providers? Teh Forum has had to face up to the challenge of the growing trend to privatise welfare services and to introduce welfare markets. This has major implications for the issue of quality of care and quality of life. At a time when people have less expectations of the state and hopes for "politics" are diminishing, what position should the churchs take in relation to strengthening political responsibility? The market is also not a reliable and trustworthy instrument for producing welfare, let alone just outcomes.

In central and eastern Europe, the position is different. The churches are recovering their capacity to be actors in the public sphere. New, pioneering initiatives are being taken but there is no consensus about the position of the church in developing welfare systems. Different western churches have provided support for institution building and in many other ways, but there is still need to work further on the different models and possibilities for the church to be involved in social welfare and responsibility. All the questions that challenge the western churches such as the introduction of markets, arise at the same time as the churches are building from scratch their different initiatives. There is a huge diversity of action but one issue that is very important is that of long term sustainability.

However, in the Forum there was also too little discussion of the question of weak states, nations where the state itself has not the capacity to secure even the minimum welfare of the people. The task of the church is very different, depending on whether it is confronted by a strong state structure which is attempting transformation, (probably adopting E.U. frameworks) or whether it is faces the challenge of building up society under conditions where the state has too few organisational and financial resources to provide for basic survival. But in every case the question of securing democracy, transparency, and the elimination of corruption are key tasks. I do not by this imply that democracy and transparency are not issues confronting western churches, or that there is a corruption free environment in the west, but that these are significant challenges in central and eastern Europe. What this means, for western churches, is the need for long-term support that goes beyond the creation of welfare institutions to the root problems facing the society and the polity. It implies and engagement with the long-term task of building civil society and with economic and labour issues. tese are challenges for the follow up of the Diaconal forum.

Another issue which calls for a stronger dialogue in the future and which lay below the surface of many discussions in the Forum is that of the position of the church in society. How the church acts and the potential of the church is very varied across the whole of Europe. In some contexts churches want to emphasise their lay contribution to society, not seeking to build there own diaconal organisations, but contributing to state and civil society. Sometimes churches view themselves as a critical voice towards the society. In these cases church and state are separated. Such churches may take anohter route and build up their own lay diaconal organisaitons, which function like non-governmental organisations. Other curches, which are often also national churches, have developed a relationship to the state, which assumes that they have a responsibility for delivering part of the health and welfare servcies for the population as a whole. So there exists, side by side, different systems based on religious or human value but recognised by the state. In yet other countreis, the church may have parish or other forms of diacona as well as diaconal institutes but ecclesiologically, the church understands itslef as part of "political society", rather than primarily as part of civil society. Some churches insist that there is only diaconia as part of a congregational life, others have separate diaconal institutions or initiatives, many of course have both.

Listening to the debates and dialogue in the process of the consultation, a number of important traditional emphases of Christian social thought were significant. One of the most important priorities to emerge is the need to reflect Christian understandings of human dignity. How do we work to preserve this value in a society which is increasingly shaped by market structures and which gives a high priority to market forces and efficiency? This affects such diverse themes as work, employment and unemployment and the issues of life and death and the quality of life offered to different groups. Too many decisions are affected by financial criteria rathern than in the interests of the preservation of human dignity and quality of life. The need for ethical norms and standards in diaconia and in health and welfare systems generally was emphasised by the working group on quality of life. A second main line revolved around the great themes of peace and reconciliation and the search for justice, which were strongly emphasised as theological priorities for diaconia.

But there were two main issues that received special attention in this forum (and I do not mention the specific issues raised in the working groups here). The first is that in the process of the enormous changes in European economies and societies, changes that have affected not only structures but also culture and values, there are challenges to Christian identity and to the identity of diaconia. This is strongly seen in central and eastern Europe, where the churches have in ten short years reconstructed and developed diaconal actions and organisations. However the background to this, in terms of the position of the churches in society and the search for Christian identity in the new situation also affects diaconia. The position of the church in the previous system(s) was different in the various countries, but in all cases there is a need to find the apropraite way for the churches to intervene in aspects of human life which were, until recently, "off-limits". We can see here a quest, not only to recover lost or buried traditions but also to relate to new conditions. But in the western countries, traditional patterns of welfare and welfare state and the traditional position of the churches and diaconia are in different ways also under challenge. In some situations, there is a kind of crisis mentality as many areas of work are restructured under financial pressure. These various crises and the common quest for new ways to engage demand an increase in the quality and the continuity of international exchanage, theological reflection on practice and learning. This will also lead to an increase in the quality of the local engagement as best practices from different countries are shared.

In relation to the new European context(s) one of the striking themes to emerge from this consultation was the focus on hospitality as a motif for diaconia. This is appropriate to situation where plurality is increasingly recognised and diaconia as an action of the church can invite people to share not simply hospitality offered but in creating a hospitable environment were all can contribute in different ways. This links up with the theme of conviviality, which was explored in the working paper on sustainable community. the ideas of conviviality and hospitality converge in diaconal traditions of urban mission, which emphasise welcoming and openness. They move away from more usual ideas of community building which, if focused directly on the church, can become exclusive. Conviviality implies sharing and living together across diversities of spirituality and culture and the search is for society in diversity. There is potential here for deeper theological exploration in relation to practice and to the discovery of new ways for diaconia in the next period. It is an urgent challenge for diaconia in relation to the need to find new models for local action and also to develop a basis for the values which can inform policy at a time when the inherited models are increasingly questioned. These motifs are relevant to diaconia in all its aspects, congregational, institutional and local.

Briefly I want to indicate the follow up steps from the Forum

• It is important to let the CEC office have information about any specific bi or multi lateral follow up actions which you are planning to carry out
• The four organising bodies (CEC, Eurodiakonia, CCME and ECG) will organise follow up in their own organisations and networks, perhaps also combining on some follow up actions.
• An address list, the press release and a photo will be sent to all participants
• Documentation will be prepared and circulated - it is important that rapporteurs send material to Eva and Tony
• An evaluation meeting will be held late November which will also reflect on follow up and decide about documentation for wider publication. Please send ideas and proposal before this meeting.

TA/JARV/10.01